The Other Side of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures

Thifani Tiara Ranti (18/424639/SP/28187)

The birth of WTO gave a way for a more comprehensive trade regulations due to its scope. WTO
covers the extension of GATT and others aspects of trade such as services under GATS and
intellectual property under TRIPS. Most of the trade regulations cover how trade should be
conducted their trading in accordance to the principle of liberalization. However, though
regulations are meant to lead a freer trade, several exceptions are allowed due to protect lives.
Under the Article 20 of GATT, WTO allows certain regulations, such as standards, in order to
protect human, animal or plant life or health as long as it is based on scientific research and not
purposefully imposed as disguised protectionism. The regulation mentioned is Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures Agreement (SPS). Under the agreement, countries are allowed to impose
import restrictions or maximum residue level, whether according their own standard or by
recognizing international standard set by the “three sisters” – Codex Alimentarius Commission,
the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC). In order to ensure countries to be informed with current SPS measures, WTO established
the SPS Committee as a platform to share information.1

Regardless of the importance of protecting lives, the existence of SPS shows a pressing issue
especially for developing countries. The SPS measures are usually stringent which sometimes
make the developing countries, who rely on agriculture for export, have limited option but to
comply. Otherwise, they have to reduce their exports to other countries. SPS measures cost quite
a lot due to the necessity to control, inspect, test, and certificate exporting product based on the
importer’s standard.2 The European Union is known to have a strict SPS measures for its food
products which the regulations are incorporated in bilateral preferential trade agreements,
including with the developing countries such as Caribbean countries, Morocco and Mexico. 3 The
impact of the enforcement for the developing countries are varied. The secretariat of the African,
Caribbean, and Pacific group of states (ACP) estimated the operational cost of complying to EU

1
“WTO | Current Issues in SPS,” accessed October 6, 2020,
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_issues_e.htm.
2
Mehdi Shafaeddin, “SPS Measures Lead to High Costs and Losses for Developing Countries,” Third World
Network, July 2007, 2.
3
Marina Murina and Alessandro Nicita, “Trading With Conditions: The Effect of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures on Lower Income Countries’ Agricultural Exports,” United Nations Publications, Policy Issues in
International Trade and Commodities Research Study Series, no. 68 (2014): 3.
SPS measures reach 2% to 10% of the value products exported by ACP countries. 4 Another
study conducted by UNCTAD in 2014, the EU SPS measures has costed higher for lower income
countries. The distortionary effect of such measures has reduced agricultural export by lower
income countries by USD$3 million or about 14 percent of agricultural trade. 5 Even though the
EU has proposed technical assistance for these countries, the study found that the impact is
debatable since it depends on how much assistance is given.6

Protecting the lives of the people is indeed important for every country. Thus, the existence of
SPS is to protect such interest. However it is worth to note that in order to comply and harmonize
with such measures, developing countries have to bear a higher cost due to limited technology
and resources. Therefore, it is important to ensure the technical assistance is given adequately for
the developing countries.

4
Shafaeddin, “SPS Measures Lead to High Costs and Losses for Developing Countries,” 1.
5
Murina and Nicita, “Trading With Conditions: The Effect of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Lower
Income Countries’ Agricultural Exports,” 10.
6
Arne Wiig and Ivar Kolstad, “Lowering Barriers to Agricultural Exports through Technical Assistance,” Food
Policy 30, no. 2 (2005): 185–204.
 Referensi

Murina, Marina, and Alessandro Nicita. “Trading With Conditions: The Effect of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures on Lower Income Countries’ Agricultural Exports.” United
Nations Publications, Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Research
Study Series, no. 68 (2014): 22.
Shafaeddin, Mehdi. “SPS Measures Lead to High Costs and Losses for Developing Countries.”
Third World Network, July 2007.
Wiig, Arne, and Ivar Kolstad. “Lowering Barriers to Agricultural Exports through Technical
Assistance.” Food Policy 30, no. 2 (2005): 185–204.
“WTO | Current Issues in SPS.” Accessed October 6, 2020.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_issues_e.htm.